JUDGMENT ORDER Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. —Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri Kunwar Rashtradeep is present. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner an inquiry was carried out but on finding the apprehension of the petitioner unfounded, the complaint was filed. However, the Deputy Commissioner Police stated that despite of the above, if the petitioner is yet apprehending any threat to his life or liberty, the Police is ready to extend the security. He has also stated that they are time and again providing safety and security to senior citizens as per provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the complaint submitted earlier was a genuine one, nevertheless if the police is ready to provide him security for his life and liberty in future, the directions may be given to Police and the matter be disposed of. 4. Considering all the aspects and after pondering over the submissions made at Bar by all the parties and the Deputy Commissioner Police, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with the directions to the respondents to provide protection of life and liberty to the petitioner against any person apprehended by him. Moreover, the petitioner is senior citizen, therefore, all the beneficiary measures be taken into service for protection of the petitioner in accordance with The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Threat of life and liberty is not a one time cause of action, it may arise time and again. Therefore, it is expected from Police that if once the apprehended threat is found to be misconceived, the complaint made subsequently should not be overlooked and under assessed. 5. The matter is disposed of with above directions.